permaculture

["keller" <ak.and.ak@on-line.de>]

>
> But how does science undertake QUALITATIVE analysis of outcomes - which
> seems to be one of the key issues that (PC) people find significantly
> meaningful in their lives? It's really good at QUANTITATIVE analysis,
> such as yields per acre/hectare, inputs, costs, percentage of protein or
> crimp of wool ... but how can it work out the net affect of our decision
> to revegetate more than 60 of our hundred acres to increase
> biodiversity, create microclimates, reduce wind erosion and drying,
> create habitat and wildlife corridors, lower the water table to reduce
> the likelihood of salination in our catchment and finally... just ENJOY
> the sight of growing indigenous pioneer species direct seeded onto our
> rocky sites. Sure, we no longer have the 19 sheep that barely managed to
> exist in the paddock under the previous owners and in the short term, at
> least, our outputs are negligible and could be ample justification for
> debunking permaculture if a quantitative short term anaylsis was
> undertaken.
>
> Meanwhile we're concentrating on our most productive soil (less than
> five acres), planting windbreaks and woodlots and indigenous seed farms
> etc. and moving towards a degree of sustainability ... and networking
> with our local community to work out what to do with our current and
> future surpluses and sharing in theirs. Not a week goes by without a
> sharing amongst local permies in some form or another of harvest,
> resources, expertise, time etc.
>
> If someone can devise a really comprehensive 'scientific' assessment of
> Permaculture that takes into account qualitative and quantitative
> factors, asessesses over a period of time and is prepared to look at the
> impacts beyond the boundaries of the specific property (because our PC
> doesn't stop at the fences) - then great, let's see it happen.

I don't have to say anything against that. You are right.

In fact I think science is fairly limited. Complete formal description of
anything a little bit more complex (and open) is impossible in principle.
For every formal theory about such a system, there will be normal processes
in the system not described by the theory. Extend the theory to describe
that process, and the resulting theory will be incomplete again. All real
world systems are like this. (Even mathematics knows such systems, where
there are more true propositions about the system than can be derived in any
formal theory). So science, I think, is quite limited in what it can do.

You can have exact descriptions of small subsystems of reality or fuzzier
descriptions of larger somethings, sharp pictures of small bits or blurred
pictures of larger ones. The more general the description gets, the less
exact it will be (philosophy end of the spectrum). The more exact it gets,
the less general (physics end of the spectrum). Generality and exactnes
cannot be achieved at the same time. The methods on both ends of the
spectrum have their justification. In my view, both ends are equaly
scientific. The methods necessary to grasp (as far as possible) human
thinking, social systems or ecosystems are more to the philosophy end of the
spectrum, and full pc systems contain all of these, so reductions to simple
theories are impossible. However, it is possible - and I think is helpful -
to use "harder" science methods on limited subsystems or limited questions
in such a system. This is less possible in pc systems than in simpler
monoculture systems. So the limits are clearly there.

But generally I think that it is necessary to use scientific scepticism. I
just think we should aim at clear thinking and not blurr our thoughts where
a clearer picture can be reached. Some ideas are nice but wrong, and we
should not stick to them just because we like them.

Andreas